The inconsistency of the available empirical data on personal and situational predictors of effective coping allows us to make an assumption about the presence of mediating variables. Their search can be centered both on the inclusion of parameters of a higher socio-cognitive level in the analysis, and on the procedural characteristics of coping, one of which is proactivity in coping. The construct of mindfulness satisfies both of these requirements.

The purpose of this study was to identify cross-cultural differences in the relationship between proactive coping strategies and the level of mindfulness

Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (“eastern” awareness), Scale of Mindfulness (“western” awareness), Proactive Coping Invertory. The sample was N = 452 (residents of Russia and Uzbekistan, age 18-25)

For Russians and Uzbeks, the indicators of “western” awareness are associated with the attitude to potential difficulties as a source of positive experience and with reflection in case of their occurrence of possible behaviors, cognitive assessment of their own resources and prediction of results, as well as with such a proactivity strategy as the search for instrumental support. Intercultural differences were noted in terms of “eastern” awareness: for Uzbeks, they are associated with a proactive coping strategy, and for Russians – with reflexive coping.

Mindfulness has the potential of meta-cognitive function in a situation of assessing possible life difficulties and choosing proactive coping strategies.

No significant relationships.

Proactive coping helps to reduce stress “in advance” – by possible stressors’ anticipating (Greenglass & Fiksenbaum, 2009). Does it helps to reduce distress in hazardous work environment with extremely high uncertainty level – like in healthcare professionals’ work at the beginning COVID-19 pandemic? Data showed the lover level of proactive coping in healthcare professionals in comparison with non-medical group (Pearman, Hughes, Smith & Neupert, 2020). The acute issue is to investigate proactive coping among medical professionals with different stress level.

Specialists of Moscow public dispensaries (doctors, n=209; nurses, n=131) were checked during pandemic breakout (April 2020) - in order to compare proactive coping and job stressors’ subjective evaluation in groups with high and low chronic states.

The diagnostic set included: the job stress survey (Spielberger, 1994); the proactive coping inventory (Greenglass, 2002); the chronic stress and fatigues inventories (Leonova, 2012).

Cluster analysis by combination of stress-fatigue scores extracted equal 22% of professionals in risk subgroups. Surprisingly no proactive coping differences were found in nurses; among doctors preventive coping is significantly lower in risk subgroup (t=7.05; p=0.009). Revealed job stressors in risk groups for nurses are quite typical; but for doctors they are unusual: extreme workload (t=33.97; p<0.001), low coworkers support (t=48.94; p<0.001), lack of positive feedback (t=62.29; p<0.001).

Despite the undeniable workload increase, well-to-do professionals perceived no high job stressors. In risk subgroup with lack of preventive coping, perceived stressors are likely connected with inability to predict strain increase and to minimize the impact of its negative effects (Moore, 2017).